1616–7

62. [f.28] 24 Feb. 1616. Bonds [partly in Latin.]

John Davis of Ratcliff and William Ball of Wapping, mariners, enter
bonds of £200 to accept the award of Richard Chester, Thomas Best,
Michael Geere and John Moore, or any 3 of them, in their dispute,
provided that the award is made at Trinity House at Ratcliff not later than
9 March 1616. [See 63].

63.9 March 1616. Award [by Trinity House. See62.]

The award is that since Davis failed, as Ball alleges, to perform his promise
to keep company with him in their late voyage from Spain, he is to take no
action for the alleged wrong done to him by Ball. Likewise Ball is to take
no action. Both are to lodge at the usual meeting place of the writers at
Ratcliff, commonly called Trinity House, before 12 March 1616,
acquittances made before 2 or more witnesses in respect of all wrongs
done to each other up to 23 Feb. 1616.

Richard Chester, Thomas Best, Michael Geere, John Moore.

64. [f.28v] 3 Apr. 1616. Privy council to the master of the rolls and Sir
Daniel Dun [admiralty court judge] concerning exports in alien ships and
freight charges [Printed in APC 1615–16, 468. Lord Knollis appears as a
signatory in 64 but not in APC.]

65. [ff.28v–29] 16 June 1616. Order of the privy council concerning freight
rates [Printed in APC 1615–16, 611–14. At the end of 65 it is stated that
'the publishing of this order is entered in the next leaf', i.e. 68.]

66. [f.29v] 26 June 1616. Certificate by Trinity House

At the request of the bearer, Nicholas Rawledge, mariner of London,
they certify from the knowledge of some of them and of other seamen
that he was taken by the Spaniards at the latter end of the late queen's
reign, lost his estate and was held in their galleys for about 4 years. He
then engaged himself industriously in merchants' affairs but last Nov.,
when master of the Feather of London bound for the 'port of Portingale'
[Oporto], he was captured by 2 French men-of-war and lost his entire
estate. Later he lost his sight and is now utterly impoverished.

At the request of the bearer, Elizabeth, wife of Moses Mason, mariner,
they certify that her husband, who has lived among them for a long time,
is a man of honest life. On a voyage to the Straits as gunner's as mate in the
Long Robert of London, he was captured by the Turks and is still held
prisoner. His wife and 3 small children are in such poverty that they
cannot provide for themselves or for his release.

70. [f.30v] 31 Jan. 1614. Privy council to the mayor and aldermen of
Newcastle about silting in the river Tyne [Printed in APC 1613–14, 340–1.
The signatories in 70 are the archbishop [of ?Canterbury], the lord
chancellor, the earl of Exeter, Sir Julius Caesar, Sir Thomas Parrie, and
the 'lord chief justice' [? Sir Edward Coke].]

71.7 Oct. 1614. Privy council to the mayor, aldermen, and sheriffs of
Newcastle about silting in the river Tyne [Printed in APC 1613–14,
579–80.]

72. [f.31. 16 June × 16 Oct. 1616] (fn. 2)Trinity House to the privy council

They have long been suitors to the privy council about the decayed
condition of ships and seamen. From time to time the privy council has
heard their pleas and on 10 [recte 16] June last, on the report of the master
of the rolls and the admiralty court judge, ordered a table of freight rates
which was fair both to the merchants and the shipowners, and which had
been agreed by both parties, to be entered in the register of council causes
and to be published [65]. Nothing is yet done and a proclamation or other
action is requested.

73.21 Jan. 1617. Certificate by R. Wheatley, late part-owner, and Richard
Bix, part-owner of the Long Robert of London

At the request of the bearer, Nicholas Rudes of Dunwich in Suffolk,
mariner, they certify that his natural son, William Rudes, mariner, was
captured by the Turks on a voyage to the Straits in the Long Robert of
London. A large ransom is required but his father, being aged and poor,
and his friends cannot provide it.

74.25 Jan. 1617. Certificate by Trinity House

Commendation of the above petition [73]. Rudes is a very young man.
Thomas Best, master; Roger Gunston, Robert Kytchen, Robert
Bradsho, Hugh Merit, Richard Chester, Nicholas Diggins, Robert
Rickman, Matthew Woodcot, William Ivey.

Thomas Whitney, esq., owner of the Thomas and Francis appointed
Michell as attorney to go to Newcastle to recover the ship and her
furniture. After doing so, Michell went on 3 voyages in her to Newcastle
for coal. On the instructions of Whitney, he then supervised the new
building of the ship and paid the weekly wages of the carpenters. Whitney
then sent him on another voyage to Newcastle, promising to clear his
account and pay him for his time. The ship has now been sold but
Whitney refuses to come to account or to refer the matter to arbitration.
Michell, in view of his poverty and that of his wife and child, asks that
Whitney be ordered to abide by arbitration.

76.11 Oct. 1616. York House [London]. T. [lord] Ellesmere, lord
chancellor, to Thomas Best, Hugh Merit and William Bygat of Trinity
House, or any 2 of them

Order to arbitrate in 75. Michell has said that he is due to go on a long
voyage.

77.2 Nov. 1616. Ratcliff. [Return to the lord chancellor. See76.]
No settlement has been made because Whitney wants them to report
their findings to the lord chancellor. He also objects in general terms to
Michell's accounts, but neither he nor the present writers can disprove
any part of them or charge Michell with dishonesty. The account shows
that £35 8s 1d is due to him, besides allowance of £10 or £12 more for the 8
or 9 months which he spent attending to Whitney's ship.

78. [f.32] 31 Dec. 1616. York House [London. Viscount] Brackley, lord
chancellor, to Thomas Best, Hugh Merit, and William Bigat of Trinity
House

After receipt of 77 he has heard Whitney, gentleman, alone and together
with Michell, mariner, a native of Scotland and does not mislike their
certificate, but since Whitney alleges that he has further material
evidence, they, together with such other members of Trinity House as
they see fit, are asked to review the case to avoid any exception. He has
such confidence in their judgement that he will accept their certificate and
cause it to be implemented. A speedy decision is requested because
Michell has long been delayed in his employment abroad owing to this
business.

79. 8 Jan. 1617. [Return to the lord chancellor. See78.]

They have re-examined both parties and find the state of the case
unaltered. Whitney has provided no new evidence. £47 8s remains due to
Michell, besides £3 or £4 incurred since their last report, leaving aside
whatever is due for his loss of time and labour which is for the lord
chancellor to decide. Also Whitney should covenant to discharge
Michell of a debt of £30 for coal loaded at Newcastle on Whitney's
account. Michell should discharge Whitney for the items in his account by
a similar bond.

Mr Sergeant Richardson, counsel for William Clarke, pl., today
informed the lord chancellor that Clarke, a poor mariner, had petitioned
the lord chancellor concerning wrongs done and wages owed to him by
William Isack, def.; that the lord chancellor had referred the case to
Trinity House, and that 5 masters had certified that £8 5s wages were due;
that thereupon the lord chancellor had ordered Isack to pay but that he
had refused to do so, and had prayed a new reference to Trinity House,
alleging that Clarke had turned roman catholic, and had left the ship 'for
religion', whereas according to counsel Clarke detested that religion and
had received holy communion since his return; that on which petition, the
case had again been referred to Trinity House but that they saw no reason
to alter their opinion. If the 5 masters will make a further certificate, the
lord chancellor will order payment.

81.18 Jan. 1617. Trinity House to viscount Brackley, lord chancellor

In accordance with his letters of 23 Dec. they were hearing the dispute
between William Isack, master of the Elizabeth and Joseph, and William
Clarke, one of the crew; Clarke was represented by his solicitor, Mr
Fenn, who produced a chancery order [80], in view of which they are
taking no further action.

82. [f.33. Received on 29 Jan. 1617. Younger] brothers of Trinity House
to the master, wardens and assistants of Trinity House

They are concerned about the weal and reputation of the fellowship and
of every member according to their duties and oaths 'taken with all due
respect to your worships as from inferiors to their superiors, or youngers
to their elders', and crave assistance 'for the further manifestation of
truth and justice' in a case already judged by the master, wardens and
assistants. They ask that a certificate be sent to the lord chancellor in the
case of Isacke and Clarke [80–1, 83], so that he may be better informed. If
the master, wardens and assistants rule that Isack must pay Clarke for
time not served in the ship, 'he may be satisfied and the cause ended'; if
not, Isack can be released from prison. The petitioners are concerned for
their own sake and for that of a wronged brother. They prefer to seek
justice from the master, wardens and assistants, who understand the
cause, rather than to pursue other courses and prevent the inconveniences which might otherwise follow this example.

His order of 23 Dec. directed them to examine the case of Isacke and
Clarke. Many of the company being out of town, there was not a
competent number so the master wrote to those away requiring their
appearance on 18 Jan. On that day [81] Henry Fenn had produced a
chancery order [80] and had said that they were to proceed no further
because the lord chancellor intended to hear the case, whereupon their
proceedings ceased. On 29 Jan. they received the enclosed petition [82].
They declare that they had considered the case and had delivered their
verdict to Clarke before receiving the lord chancellor's letter of 23 Dec.
and before Clarke's petition to the lord chancellor. Their opinion was
that Clarke deserved no wages but rather punishment for reasons which
can be explained if desired. Furthermore [f.33v] Clarke or Fenne has
misrepresented them to the lord chancellor. The chancery order [80]
states that they saw no reason to alter the certificate of the 5 masters
whereas Trinity House had not examined the cause since receipt of the
lord chancellor's letter of 23 Dec., much less confirmed the certificate,
'but directly contrary'.

The king has granted letters patent to Andrew Boyd and others for the
survey of coal at Newcastle, Sunderland and Blyth, and 4d per chaldron
there laden, the burden of which is intolerable and will result in the decay
of trade and shipping. The 4d per chaldron may not seem much but will
yield about £4,000 a year, which is a large part of the profit of the trade,
obtained with great labour and desperate adventure. The facts are as well
known to Trinity House as to the petitioners, and in one respect concern
Trinity House more because the king has given them trust for the increase
and preservation of shipping. They are asked to petition the privy council
to secure the removal of the imposition.

Dun wishes to be satisfied about the need for lights at or near Winterton.
A motion has been made to them by masters trading that way and
contradicted by others who would have to contribute towards the
charges. Trinity House, from their experience, considered that there was
at present no need since there are already lights and buoys not far away at
Caister; and also in view of the small profit in the trade to Newcastle,
additional charges should be avoided. Nevertheless, after the present
foul weather, they are sending 3 or 4 of their most experienced men to
sound the channels and to provide lights and seamarks as necessary. They
have already conferred with some of Yarmouth about materials and
workmen if needed.

A statute [8 Elizabeth, c. 13] gave them the right to provide all buoys,
beacons, marks and signs for the sea throughout the realm. In 36
Elizabeth, the lord high admiral resigned all his rights in this respect to
the queen because Trinity House were the most experienced and fittest
for this responsibility, and thereupon the queen by letters patent granted
the rights to them [C 66/1410, mm. 11–12]. The king is asked not to grant
rights in respect of the provision of lights or marks to any but the
petitioners, who are responsible for the conduct and pilotage of his 'navy
royal' and the greatest part of the shipping of the realm. They make this
petition because they understand that the king has been asked to confer
rights upon some who are not seamen and have no knowledge or
experience. Since channels and sands alter with every great tempestuous
wind, experience is essential. Otherwise ships, goods and men will be
imperilled. [f.35 is lacking.]

Reasons against the 4d per chaldron of coal: (a) Owners will be soon
impoverished and shipping decay. (b) The motive of trade is profit, and if
removed, trade and shipping will decline; seamen will be forced to seek
employment in Holland, France, Spain or Turkey, there to be pirates,
and their wives and children forced to beg. (c) The best nursery for
seamen will be lost; the king's navy will then either not have sufficient
seamen or be forced to employ landsmen who for want of knowledge will
imperil his ships or those of merchants. (d) The office of survey will be
tedious and will hinder the 300 ships engaged in the trade of a quarter of
their time; profits will be reduced, owners impoverished and seamen
undone; exports of 40,000 or 50,000 chaldrons of coal will be lost and the
city and other places will lack supplies; prices will rise and thereby 'the
poor of all trades impoverished'. (e) The 4d per chaldron is more than the
profit cleared by many ships at the end of the year.

89.14 Feb. 1617. Order of the privy council concerning Winterton
lighthouse [Printed in APC 1616–17, 141–2.]

90. [ff.37–8] 14 Feb. 1617. Order of the privy council concerning the
conservation of the river Tyne [Printed in APC 1616–17, 147–50.]

91. [f.38v] 16 Feb. 1617. Order of the privy council concerning the
conservation of the river Tyne [Printed in APC 1616–17, 150–1.]

92. [18 Feb. 1617] Privy council to the mayor of Newcastle concerning the
conservation of the river Tyne [Printed in APC 1616–17, 146–7.]

93. [f.39] 18 Feb. 1617. Privy council to the bishop of Durham and the
sheriff of Northumberland about the conservation of the river Tyne

[Printed in APC 1616–17, 145–6. The signatories, not listed in APC, were
the archbishop of Canterbury, the lord high admiral, the lord
chamberlain, the earl of Arundel, the bishop of Ely, lord Zouch, Mr
comptroller, Mr vice chamberlain, Mr secretary Winwoode, Mr secretary
Lake, the chancellor of the exchequer, the master of the rolls, and the
attorney general.]

94. [f.39v. 21 Feb. 1617. Mayor and aldermen of London to the privy
council about the survey of coals. Printed in APC 1616–17, 165–7.]

The king has ordered that Bacon and others of the king's counsel should
consider what rights Trinity House have to provide seamarks under the
statute of 8 Elizabeth [c. 13] and by letters patent, and report to the
council.

96.15 March 1617. The lord keeper to the privy council about the right of
Trinity House to provide lighthouses [The report of Bacon, who had
become lord keeper on 7 March 1617, in reply to 95 is in the privy council
order of 26 March 1617 (APC 1616–17, 204).]

97.1 March 1617. Certificate by Trinity House

The bearer, Mary Cooke, widow, is very poor. Her late husband, Henry
Cooke, part owner of the Mary Constant of London, was taken with the
ship by Turkish pirates and sustained great loss to his utter undoing. Her
son, Martin Cooke, was also lately taken by the Turks and held in slavery.
She cannot redeem him without help.

[Note at end] A true copy of the certificate given to Mary Cooke by
Trinity House on the date stated; copied from the register today, 9 Jan.
1619. Thomas Best, Thomas Love, Roger Gunston, Matthew Woodcot,
Walter Whyting.

98.5 March 1617. [Trinity House] to Mr Norreys and Mr Geere

They are to go without delay to Winterton and select a suitable site near
Winterton Ness for a turret or watchhouse in which to maintain a light of
sea coals for guiding ships from the sea into the roads, and sites for 2 other
lighthouses for leading marks. They are then to arrange for the supply of
materials and make contracts with workmen for building the lighthouses,
so far as the £60 allocated to them for that purpose permits. If more
money is needed, any which is taken up in the country will be repaid in
London. They are to pay Mr Amys of Yarmouth for candles or wages
delivered by him to Wilson, keeper of the lights at Caister. Accounts are
to be rendered on their return. The keeping of lights at Caister and
Stamport is to be inspected and they are to employ men and boats as
needed to help in sounding the channels and sands.

Mr Secretary Lake instructed him in April to consult other counsel about
the king's power in erecting lighthouses and whether the statute of 8
Elizabeth [c. 13] so incorporates the power and sets the trust in such
erecting in Trinity House that the king without straining the prerogative
may not perform the same or delegate his power. The present lord
keeper, as attorney general, has already partly resolved the question in
his report [96]. Having heard the counsel of Trinity House and also Sir
William Erskine, who has petitioned the king about erecting a lighthouse
at Winterton Ness, opinion is given that (a) lighthouses are seamarks
within the meaning of the statute; (b) by the statute Trinity House possess
authority and trust to provide lighthouses if they will; (c) Trinity House
cannot transfer this authority. But the grant to Trinity House does not
inhibit the crown under common law because its provisions are in the
affirmative, allowing Trinity House to erect lighthouses but not excluding
the king from doing so; since the passing of the statute both he and the
late queen have authorised the erection of some lighthouses. So although
authority is vested in Trinity House as persons of skill, if they fail to do so,
the king is not restrained from providing lighthouses in all necessary
places. The question of convenience as opposed to law is for [the privy
council] to judge.

[Note at end] A petition about this business delivered to the [privy
council] on 18 Feb. 1618 with 'inconveniences' are entered below
[115–16].

110. [f.46v] 16 June 1617. Privy council to Trinity House and others
concerning a levy to finance an expedition against the Turkish pirates
[Printed in APC 1616–17, 262–4 and dated 1 June 1617. The signatories,
not listed in APC, were the archbishop of Canterbury, the earl of
Worcester, lords Zouche, Stanhope and Carew, and Sir Ralph
Winwoode.]

In reply to their letter of 16 June [110], they summoned a meeting of all
masters and owners of ships who are seamen and outlined the plan. All
applauded it, and agreed that ships trading to the Straits east of Cape
Gata will pay 1s 6d per ton; that those trading to the Straits west of Cape
Gata and Spain from the Straits' mouth to the North Cape (viz. Cape
Finisterre), the Islands, Barbary, Guinea, Benin, etc. will pay 8d per ton;
and those trading to Biscay, France, Flanders, Holland, Friesland,
Hamburg, Danzig, Melvin, Norway, Russia, Greenland and all northern
parts overseas will pay 3d per ton. These impositions are to be paid every
voyage, half at the entry* of the ship outward bound, the other half at her
entry on her return home. A letter to the Customs House is requested so
that they may have their deputy for collection there. Judging from the
number and tonnage of ships employed in 1616, the following sums will
be levied:

Imposition of 1s 6d per ton

£329

Of 8d per ton

£386

Of 3d per ton

£353

£1,068

112. [f.47. After 16 June 1617. Memorandum by Trinity House]

After receipt of 110, these masters and owners of ships being summoned
agreed in writing to the proposed impositions:

John Davis, John Bigat, John Bourne, John Flud, William Case, William
Rand, John Bennet, Reynold Hoxton, Robert Mott, John Hone, John
Blake, Richard Plumpton, Peter Whyte, William Shaw, Robert Tyler,
William Mathew, John Grant, Roger Sherman, William Becke, Edmond
Gardner, junior, Walter Cooke, Robert Stevens, George Hatch, William
Mallet, John Wootten, William Isacke, Robert Myller, Robert Bence,
junior, Thomas Johnson, John Startup, William Cocke, William
Dowglas, Thomas Hart, Simon Nickoles, John Rickes, John Patteson,
John Sayer, Anthony Tutchen, Peter Kenton, Lawrence Nixe, John
Felton, Edward Nicholles, Richard Malym, George Lyssant, John
Franckton, John Lyngwood, Thomas Needes, John Chester, William
Startout, Josiah Church, William Bushell, Peter Blake, Stephen Church,
Samuel Each.

113. [Before 3 July 1617. Trinity House] to the lord keeper [See114.]

In accordance with his reference to them of the cause of Isacke and
Clarke, they have summoned Clarke to appear several times by letters
left at his house and by their officer but he refuses to come. They know no
more of the case than they did in the late lord chancellor's time when he
referred it to them [80–3] which they can certify if desired.

114. [f. 47v] 19 July 1617. Ratcliff. Trinity House to the lord keeper

In accordance with his reference to them of 3 July of the cause of Isacke
and Clarke, they have tried to summon Clarke to appear but cannot find
him. They therefore certify what they ascertained from earlier examinations [80–3, 113]. Isacke was master of a ship on a voyage into the Straits
for some of the Turkey company, and hired Clarke as cook. At Messina
in Sicily Clarke quarrelled with a fellow seaman and being reprimanded
by the master shortly afterwards went ashore with other members of the
crew and 'insinuating himself to the Jesuits and others of the Inquisition
there abiding' secured an order for the payment of all wages due to him to
date contrary to his contract with the master under which wages would be
paid on the return of the ship to London. Having also been persuaded to
become a roman catholic, Clarke 'obtained so much from thence as that
the master Isacke was fain to enter into bond in the sum of 2,000 ducats
not to receive him into the ship again'. Clarke was sent by the Jesuits with
letters to Rome and, he and others meeting Isack at Naples on the way,
would have had him apprehended had he not escaped in great danger. On
the evidence no money is due to Clarke for time not served in the ship,
but rather the contrary because he did what might have turned to the
overthrow of the whole voyage, the ship and the master.

Footnotes

1. On receipt of the Trinity House petition (72), the privy council wrote to the lord
treasurer (69) and sent to Trinity House a signed transcript of the order of 16 June (65) to
be set up in the Exchange (APC 1616–17, 42–3).

2. The requirement to publish was omitted from the order of 16 June, but apparently
added on 16 Oct. (68).

3. Names in the MS are in 4 columns. Examination of wills suggests that not all names
are in the correct column.

4. Probably the petition considered by the privy council on 14 Feb. 1617 (APC 1616–17,
142–3). A virtually identical copy (103) states at the end that it was referred by the king
to the privy council.